re: Kentucky Man Sues Doctor For Amputating His PenisPosted by medtiger on 9/11/12 at 9:00 pm to lsu480

As a medical professional, without knowing all the details, I can't see anyway the doctor isn't liable, and you could make an argument that he should be arrested for battery. There's no way that a consent for a circumcision would contain language to allow for the removal of the penis. And there's no way this was an emergency.

re: Kentucky Man Sues Doctor For Amputating His PenisPosted by foshizzle on 9/11/12 at 9:09 pm to crimsonsaint

quote: Let the fricking dude wake up first and tell him what's up. Dude comes in to get circumcised looking forward to better sex and wakes up without a dick.

Doesn't sound like he was going to be having any sex with a cancer-ridden member anyway. And it costs a helluva lot more to put him under a second time, might as well get it done then and there. Given that the patient was illiterate anyway they probably saved a ton of money.

What does surprise me is that the doctors didn't figure this out in pre-op examination, but that's a different matter.

re: Kentucky Man Sues Doctor For Amputating His PenisPosted by LSUTigerguy789 on 9/11/12 at 9:20 pm to lsufanva

quote:That doctor would have a little more to worry about than a lawsuit if he cut my dick off before checking with me 1st. Let's be real, at that point most men would consider their life over. No reason not to kill that bastard.

Read the article. The penis was cancer-ridden, and the doctor stated there was no viable tissue remaining.

quote:I mean seriously. Let the fricking dude wake up first and tell him what's up. Dude comes in to get circumcised looking forward to better sex and wakes up without a dick.

It really comes down to informed consent. I think the doc is going to have to pay the man in this case, since it sounds like he didn't consent to an amputation, even though that was the standard of care.

Any reasonable person would have chosen to have the cancer-ridden penis amputated, but people DO have the right to make bad decisions, and that's the main issue in this case.

re: Kentucky Man Sues Doctor For Amputating His PenisPosted by GEAUXT on 9/11/12 at 9:25 pm to LSUTigerguy789

quote:It really comes down to informed consent. I think the doc is going to have to pay the man in this case, since it sounds like he didn't consent to an amputation, even though that was the standard of care.

re: Kentucky Man Sues Doctor For Amputating His PenisPosted by TypoKnig on 9/11/12 at 9:41 pm to medtiger

quote:As a medical professional, without knowing all the details, I can't see anyway the doctor isn't liable, and you could make an argument that he should be arrested for battery. There's no way that a consent for a circumcision would contain language to allow for the removal of the penis. And there's no way this was an emergency.

I agree that i would need more details and would need to see the consent forms. The article says the patient signed 2 consent forms. He should not have signed the forms if he was illiterate and did not understand what was stated in the consents.

re: Kentucky Man Sues Doctor For Amputating His PenisPosted by MDcajuntiger on 9/11/12 at 9:43 pm to medtiger

quote:medtiger As a medical professional, without knowing all the details, I can't see anyway the doctor isn't liable, and you could make an argument that he should be arrested for battery. There's no way that a consent for a circumcision would contain language to allow for the removal of the penis. And there's no way this was an emergency.

Not necessarily true, but I do not know the details.

This MD could have possibly done a better job documenting the severity of the situation. I have managed situations similar to this. In a non-circumcised man, most penile cancer occur on the glans (head) or the foreskin. These tumors can be nasty and obscured by a tight foreskin that cannot be retracted (hiding the lesion until the time a circumcision has been performed). Some of these lesions can become obstructing causing urinary retention (which would make it an emergency). Partial penile amputation vs complete penile amputation are often necessary when nasty penile lesions are encountered.

I have personally been called into a case where a rectal mass was found to be invading the prostate/bladder. This was not appreciated by the colorectal surgeon until the time of the procedure. In this instance I did not have a chance to discuss anything with the already asleep patient. I went out to the waiting room and discussed the situation with his girlfriend (no family was present or remotely in the picture). We took his bladder and prostate out thereby committing to a life of wearing a bag for his urine. Once the patient recovered, he was extremely thankful that we proceeded the way we did (instead of waking him up, asking him his opinion, and repeating his surgical procedure).

FWIW I documented the shite out of the situation so there was no ambiguity as to my rationale and the difficulty the situation presented. Anytime I encounter bad situations that require cutting off someone genitals (google Fourniers gangrene and images.) I make sure that the medical record reflects the severity of how nasty things are.

Summary: there is stuff out there bad enough to have your junk cut off justifiably if the shite is hitting the fan...